About Time 5: The Unauthorized Guide to Doctor Who

About Time #5

by Lawrence Miles, Tat Wood

Constituting the largest reference work on "Doctor Who" ever written, the six-volume "About Time" strives to become the ultimate reference guide to the world's longest-running science fiction program. Written by Lawrence Miles ("Faction Paradox") and long-time sci-fi commentator Tat Wood, "About Time" focuses on the continuity of "Doctor Who" (its characters, alien races and the like), but also examines the show as a work of social commentary. In particular, Miles and Wood dissect the politics and social issues that shaped the show during its unprecedented 26-year run (from 1963 to 1989), detailing how the issues of the day influenced this series. As part of this grand opus, About Time 5 examines "Doctor Who" Seasons 18 to 21 (1980 to 1984)-the end of Tom Baker's time with the show, the whole of the Peter Davison era and the introduction of Colin Baker as the Doctor. Among other things, About Time 5 answers such vitally important "Who" questions as "Why Are There So Many Doubles in the Universe?," "Which Stories Have the Best Body-Counts?"

Genres: Doctor Who, Nonfiction, Reference, Tv, Science Fiction Fantasy, Criticism, Essays

336 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 30, 2005

Reviews

[Arthur B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid volume of the series, not least because of the bifurcation of the critiques into prosecution and defence - a necessity for such a contentious period of the show. Full review: https://fakegeekboy.wordpress.com/202...

[Nicholas Whyte]

http://nhw.livejournal.com/964336.html[return][return]This is the fifth and latest so far published in this superb series of reference guides to Doctor Who. It's the only one that doesn't begin or end with a change of Doctors - it encapsulates the whole Peter Davison era, plus Tom Baker's last season and Colin Baker's first story; it also, of course, covers roughly the first half of John Nathan-Turner's time as producer. It's an era where my memory is variable - I saw every episode of seasons 18 and 19 when first broadcast, but remember only about half of season 20 and a bit less of season 21. Since I started watching old Who again in 2005, I've seen only five stories from this period (out of 29), so on the whole it is less fresh for me.[return][return]Still, Miles and Wood deliver the goods, explaining what the intellectual and cultural roots of each story are, usually finding good things to say despite their general anti-John Nathan-Turner snarking as well as blistering specific critiques of each one (eg, under The Twin Dilemma, they point out that there doesn't actually appear to be a dilemma in the story). Their inserted essays are, I think, more analytical on the whole than in the other volumes, starting and finishing with the cases for the defence and prosecution of JNT, and including also reflections on the effects of Doctor Who Monthly and the 1983 Longleat celebration on Doctor Who fandom.

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

After watching 17 Seasons of WHO, I noticed I didn't really care any more. Was I just bored? Maybe. But as the authors point out with their analyses and behind-the-scenes info, by the end of the Tom Baker era neither the star nor any of the creative forces were really giving it their all.

Fortunately, the advent of the JNT era brought with it some refreshing changes; watching the series, you can notice the immediate upturn in quality, but the fantastically informative and insightful commentary in this book gives you a much clearer idea as to why. Sadly, by the time the book finishes off, you can see where it's all going so horribly horribly wrong, and why the producer gained the terrible reputation that he did.

Still, I suppose having watched 21 out of 26 seasons, it'd be silly to stop now....

[Nina · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wanted to like the Davison era much more than I did. This had nothing to do with Davison himself, who did the best he could with what he was given and almost saves some awful stories all by himself. The blame can be laid squarely at the feet of John Nathan-Turner and Eric Saward. Many of the problems of the era are summarized very succinctly in this book as follows: "With Ian Levine on board vetting the series for any inadvertent creativity or imagination, Bidmead trying to make Open University modules and then Saward attempting to make the type of stories that usually starred Stallone or Schwartzenegger (ignoring the fact that the cast was now Mr. Sitcom and his child brides), and the resulting mess sounding like '70s Public Information films about road safety but looking less exciting...who in their right mind would watch this?"

Who indeed.

[Dustin Manning]

As I continue on my journey of watching every episode of doctor who, this series has been an impeccable source of information and critique aiding me in how to view the show.
As I await the next volume (the final in classic who) I'm rereading the essays held within and I just finished reading one specifically dealing with the "sf vs fantasy" issues arising throughout the series. Phenomenal full stop.

[Wendy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Continues the usual high standards of this series. There's some particularly thought-provoking critique in this volume, since it covers a lot of stories that have divided fan opinion, as well as stories that are pretty universally considered to be rubbish.

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another fine entry in the series. I really enjoyed reading about each episode after I finished watching it (still mostly for the first time). Although I do wish I had a dollar for every time Star Wars was mentioned because then I would have enough money to purchase volume 7.

[Gavin Mills · Rating 4 out of 5]

Let down a bit by the final essay, otherwise a great read.